On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:04:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 06:57:34AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote: > > > > Robert suggested some changes. I also noticed in the discussion that > > > > you didn't follow common practise (like an existing grub-mkimage > > > > implementation). Personally, as maintainer, I am against maintaining > > > > two different approaches of the same problem. It costs us time to > > > > maintain this and both case have separate bugs. So I rather see the > > > > code shared, one way or the other. To safe time, it might save you > > > > some work if you initiate a discussion about this. > > > > > > The facts: > > > > > > util/i386/efi/grub-mkimage.c and elf2pe.c do almost the same thing: > > converting > > > an ELF file to a PE file. But: > > > > > > * the input format is slightly different (Elf32 vs Elf64) > > > * the output format is slightly different (PE vs PE+) > > > * the relocating work is different (x86 vs ia64, Rel vs Rela) > > > * The entry point is a descriptor on ia64 > > > * grub-mkimage.c can insert modules in a section. > > > > Sounds like they're very different. Maybe it'd be fine to just change > > the name and user interface from elf2pe.c to util/ia64/efi/grub-mkimage.c ? > > > > What do you think? > > Fine for me.
Will you send a new patch for this? -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
